Free Will and Choice - Research Paper Example

Research Paper of Philosophy: Free will and choice The issue of free will or free choice has been discussed for centuries and the responses generated point to the fact that it is difficult to come into consensus. Given that the question of whether we are free or not has been controversial throughout history, there are scholars who have come up with a positive answer that free will exists. With free will, there has erupted the issue of determinism where there have been various lines of thoughts. In this case, there are those perspectives that see free will as freedom from determinism and hold that free choice or free will is not compatible with determinism. These are called incompatibilists and are divided into two; metaphysical libertarianism and hard determinists. Metaphysical libertarianists claim that determinism does not exist and therefore free will is at least possible. On the other hand, hard determinists argue that determinist really exists and thus free will is not possible. There are also compatibilists who hold that determinism is inevitable for free will to exist because choice is guided by preferences. Where preferences are involved, one course of action is preferred over another and in this case some senses are involved on the way the choices will be made (Goodwin 11). In this case, compatibilists have considered the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will and determinism as a misguided and false dilemma (Richards 142). The views presented by compatibilists, that free will exist with determinism, is consistent with my own and in this paper I show their argument and the objections presented by incompatibilists. The first question to pose is; are we free? Is there such thing as free will or choice? Most scholars have deliberated on the issue of free will or choice and the big question has sought to answer the question as to whether we are really free (Jaworski, Chap 13). The fact that I choose to stand by compatibilists view that free will exists in this paper, and not the reverse position is already an indication that I am free to choose. Free will is that ability of an agent or agents to make choices without control of factors from within or from without. The factors that have been put on spot regarding control are many including physical, psychological, metaphysical, social, economic, and political among other possible constraints in making a free choice (Jaworski, Chap 13). In the analysis of Clark (1999: 280) the principle of free choice is controlled by ethics, religion, science and law and the implications are viewed from these wider perspectives. Therefore, if the free will is not free, can we say that there is existence of choice or free will? The argument for positive answers on the existence of free will is developed by compatibilists. Compatibilists Compatibilists argue that free will can exist and truly do exist alongside determinism. Determinism is an assumption that everything is predetermined. For example, in this paper, I had to choose to be on the compatibilists point of view with regard to the existence of free will. Even if this was predetermined, I had the last laugh and this means determinism is highly compatible with free choice. According to compatibilists, free will can be present or absent in life because neither of the situations affects metaphysics. There are examples of cases where individuals are judged with regard to their state of mind. For instance, judges and courts sometimes have to refer to whether a person committed a crime out of free will or under influential circumstances such as under the influence of alcohol of mental states. In this case, compatibilists define free will as acting in one’s motives without any control from other persons or agents. This position is against incompatibilists who argue that their understanding of free choice is based squarely on metaphysical free will. However, this may be defeated given that metaphysical free will can not be defined in a coherent manner. In this case, what matters the most is not determinism but whether the will of an individual is born of their own desires and not driven by some external factors (Bobzien 6). This can also be illustrated by my choice of argument in this paper; that free will exists and do so together with determinism. Compatibilists do not endorse a particular form of free will; they just disagree with any argument that separates determinism and free will. This is because when the two are separated, the argument can easily beat a gridlock. Therefore, it is important to recognize that there are various barriers to one’s free choice but this does not give an agent freedom to perform any action. This is because the freedom of choice is not aligned with freedom to apply such a choice. Most scholars hold that free will presupposes absence of some impediments. In this case, free will is freedom to choose what constraints allows one to choose provided the choices one is forced to make are consistent with individual’s desires and interests. For example in this paper I had many choices, but was limited to the one provided. The constraints allowed me to choose only from the list. In this case, I had to choose the prompt that fits my desires and interests; the compatibilists stand on free will. There are many ways in which compatibilists understand free will to be and the following seven arguments are worth noting: Free will as lack of physical restraint There are classical compatibilists who hold that a person can only be said to act out of free will if and only if such an individual exercises his or her desire in performing a choice. This will also be measured on the ability of the choosing agent’s to have done otherwise if he desired. For example, I could have chosen to tackle the question on mind-body problem and I was free to do that without any constraints. Therefore, free will is established if the individual is found to have had ability to chose among the choices and be free to choose any without being constraint by a physical force. Free will as a psychological state Free will is also defined as a lack of psychological state from the view that an agent should not perform a predetermined choice. A free agent should be able to choose the route of achieving goals through will, passions and intellect. Thomas Aquinas, one of the proponents of this understanding holds that free will falls within five categories namely the intellectual will in; desiring the objective, attaining the objective, pursuing the objective, choices of means, and electing the execution of an action (Frankfurt 12). In this case, free will is not a cognitive power of intellect but a form of internal desires and inclinations. Since I believe that I am free to choose and that freedom is inherent, I believe in existence of free will; and that any determinism is meaningless without my ability to choose freely from the many choices. Moreover, free will is seen as a inhering in the ability of an individual to rank his desires and chose the ones in the first order without being forced to choose what is not in his highest hierarchy of need. This is how I ranked the prompts in this paper; I chose the one I thought I can generate consistent argument and earn me the highest marks. Free will as unpredictability Moreover, free will can also be conceptualized as an unpredictability in which free will can be achieved by excluding god and other predetermined possibilities. This way, the future is left without any ill definition for all finite beings. The only well defined possibility will be expectations in which there will be an ability of an individual to do otherwise in free choices. This ability of an individual to act differently from what is expected of him is where free will comes true and possible. Free will as an illusion Other compatibilists argue that free will is an illusion. This is born of the fact that we think we are free because we are conscious of our actions and are not aware of the causes of our actions. David Hume holds that the issue of free will is verbal and involves taking actions which are caused by factors we realise later when we become critical of our actions. To this line of thought, I am sure I was under no illusion when selecting my prompt in this assignment. I therefore, will be reluctant to accept without interrogating, this position. Free will as moral imagination The idea of free will as moral imagination is proposed by Rudolf Steiner and he holds that free will is understood when split into two; freedom of thought and freedom of action. That we can only separate will from action and try to bridge the left gap between the sensory impression and thoughts. Therefore, the aspects of inner and outer determinants in our choices are true and free will can only be exercised if the two are united and a choice is made. Free will as a pragmatically useful concept Free will as a pragmatic concept is conceptualized by William James who holds that there is no evidence of free will in ethical sense. Moreover, William James believes that indeterminism can not be inevitable in moral responsibility; it is only important as a doctrine relief. This way, he holds that the world may be a bad place but through actions of human beings, it is made better place to live. This way, determinism undermines the reality of progress that can really transform the world. Therefore, if we believe in determinism, we will be agents who are guided by some invisible force and this will make us effortless and powerless beings who can not improve our lives. This is true also I my case, if I just laid my choice on a question and belief that it was determined that I do it without considering my ability to deliver argument, I would be narrow-minded. Since I wanted to score highest, I had to make the best choice there was without a tint of determinism in my mind. Free will and variations of causality As a variation of causality, free will is determined by mind and neurological functions. This is what separates a thinking being from the inanimate entities (Clark 280). In this case, free will and neurology are separate and attempting to explain free will using neurological mechanism is a futile and a fallacious approach. Regardless of these consistent arguments from compatibilists, Incompatibilists are for the argument that free will and determinism can not coexist and therefore, would mean my choice of question in this assignment was not out of my free will. Incompatibilists To them, the major issue of whether people have free will or not preludes the question as to whether their actions are determined or not. Some hard determinists like Martin Luther argue that determinism exists and that no such thing as free will exists. Metaphysical libertarians like Thomas Reid accept free will and reject determinism. In this case, hard determinists and libertarian incompatibilists live on the opposite sides on the world. Moreover, as hard incompatibilists believe that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, libertarian incompatibilists hold that there are some forms of indeterminism that are compatible with free will. In general, incompatibilism is guided by some arguments. The first one is the traditional argument that people are not supposed to have free will if they are to be considered as mechanical objects. However, Daniel Dennett refuses this line of thought on the grounds that humans can not have and do not have anything substantively similar to mechanical things. Therefore, thinking that humans should be classified together with mechanical things and they are radically different does not hold any water (Bishop 604). Another argument advanced by incompatibilists is that of causal chain in which they do not agree that free will consists any form of voluntary acts. To them, free will means that man should be the ultimate cause or originator of his action. In the classical term, man is Causa Sui; that responsibility for one’s choice should be the causes of the freedom to choose. In this case, if man is the ultimate cause of his action, his free will can not be in doubt. However, whenever determinism is conceptualized as true, then it would mean that all actions do not inhere in man and therefore events are cause by circumstances outside his control (Bobzien 7). This argument may have some flaws because if this can be true, then nothing in man can be associated with his action. This deduction, therefore, leads to a conclusion that man can not have free will. The third argument from incompatibilists, especially developed by Carl Ginet, is that if in determinism exists; man lacks the control of past events that determine our present events and thus no control over the laws of nature. Given that there is no space of control of these events, man can not control the results of the events either (Bishop 605). This means that free will can not exist because our present acts are consequences of past laws of nature. This argument is unable to cope with the impossibility of an agent to choose rather than to have. Therefore, the argument contradicts the possibility of abilities and necessities and therefore, any free will evoked for a free choice is a form of an illusion. In conclusion, human beings have a strong sense of freedom that makes them think that they are free to choose their actions. Incompatibilists claim that sometimes we can be misled by a feeling that we are free. Compatibilists gives us a chance to examine our scope of free will and thus confirms our feeling that we really are free to make choices even though they are sometimes predetermined. There is a causal closure that holds that no physical event has a cause outside the physical domain. This is the opposite of a physical determinism from incompatibilists that posits that the future is already determined by some events of the past in the notion of cause and effects. It is important to bring together freedom of will and determinism and the need to bring about the reconciliation is what has given birth to the problem of free will or the determinism dilemma. Interestingly, the dilemma boils down to moral dilemma in which humans wonder their end if their actions are determined by past forces. As seen in their stand, classical compatibilists tackles the dilemma in their argument that free will exists as long as one’s actions are not limited by external factors. Modern compatibilists distinguish freedom of choice from freedom to act. Compatibilists free will can also be associated with natural sense of agency in which a person must assume the sense of an agent so as to develop free will and choice. On the other hand, incompatibilists argue that if we hold the world is deterministic, then the feeling that we are free is a blatant illusion. However, incompatibilists fails to resolve the debate as to whether physical universe is driven by determinism in fact. Even though incompatibilists metaphysical libertarianism has a lot of immaterial constructions including the ability to veto our actions based on competing desires, compatibilists idea is constructed under the watch of dualistic understanding of determinism and free will coexistence. This view is believable given that coexistence of free will and determinism bridges the gap left when either of the conditions are not fulfilled. Works Cited Bishop, Robert. Compatibilism and incompatibism. In Raymond Y. Chiao, Marvin L. Cohen, Anthony J. Leggett, William D. Phillips, Charles L. Harper, Jr. Visions of Discovery: New Light on Physics, Cosmology, and Consciousness. Cambridge: University Press, 2010. Print. Bobzien, Susanne. Freedom and Determinism in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University press, 1998. Print. Clark, Thomas. “Fear of mechanism: A compatibilist critique of The Volitional Brain.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 6.8-9(1999): 279–93. Frankfurt, Harry. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of the Person.” Journal of Philosophy 68.1(1971): 5–20. Goodwin C. James. Research In Psychology: Methods and design (6th ed.). New York: Wiley, 2009. Jaworski, William. Philosophy of Mind: A Comprehensive Introduction (Chapter 13). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print. Richards, Janet. “The root of the free will problem: kinds of non-existence.”  Human Nature after Darwin: A Philosophical Introduction. London, New York: Routledge, 2001. Print. Read More